Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] s5p-csis: Add device tree support
From: Stephen Warren <hidden>
Date: 2013-02-08 23:27:30
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-media, linux-samsung-soc
On 02/08/2013 03:29 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 02/07/2013 12:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:quoted
On 02/01/2013 12:09 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:quoted
s5p-csis is platform device driver for MIPI-CSI frontend to the FIMC device. This patch support for binding the driver to the MIPI-CSIS devices instantiated from device tree and for parsing all SoC and board specific properties.quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/soc/samsung-mipi-csis.txtb/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/soc/samsung-mipi-csis.txtquoted
+Optional properties: + +- clock-frequency : The IP's main (system bus) clock frequency in Hz, default + value when this property is not specified is 166 MHz;Shouldn't this be a "clocks" property, so that the driver can call clk_get(), clk_prepare_enable(), clk_get_rate(), etc. on it?Hi Stephen, Thanks for your review! I also use "clocks" and "clock-names" property, but didn't specify it here, because the Exynos SoCs clocks driver is not in the mainline yet.
I'm a bit sympathetic to this, since I've been trying to push Tegra towards the common clock framework and describing clock connectivity in DT, before adding new drivers that need clocks, specifically to avoid this kind of situation. The problem here is that if this gets merged now, then the clock driver comes along later, you'll have to change this binding definition to account for it, and DT bindings aren't supposed to be changed... Do you have any clock driver at all upstream yet? Or, could you add a dummy clock driver to satisfy the driver's clkl_get() needs? If you do, you can always set up some AUXDATA so that clk_get() works for your driver right now, and then remove that once the complete clock driver is in place with full device tree support. That's how we've ended up handling this for Tegra drivers. Anyway, this is all mainly food-for-thought rather than an objection to the patch; I'd leave that to Grant/Rob if applicable.